This might seem like an odd question, but I was wondering if it were possible with any sort of hack to call static functions from another file without explicitly using extern or anything like that. Perhaps by calling the memory address of the function directly or something.
Basically what I want to do is create a test framework which can call into any function by specifying the function, file and function parameters.
So something like this structure:
component/
component.c
static int foo(int a){return a/2;}
int bar(){ return 4;}
unit_tests/
main.c
int val = component.c::foo(4) * bar();
Even better would be if I could do this at runtime by injecting into the memory address of the function or something. I'm not entirely sure about if this would be executable on linux though, or if I'd hit security issues.
Perhaps something similar to this, and have a block of code in my component process to interpret runtime calls and translate to the correct function address: Calling a function through its address in memory in c / c++
You can use function pointers to static functions.
For test frameworks, note that some existing test frameworks in C use the trick to force you to use STATIC instead of the static specifier and STATIC is a macro defined (by the framework) to either nothing or static if you are in test mode or not to specify the correct linkage.
Related
I have a working set of TCL script plus C++ extension but I dont know exactly how it works and how was it compiled. I am using gcc and linux Arch.
It works as follows: when we execute the test.tcl script it will pass some values to an object of a class defined into the C++ extension. Using these values the extension using a macro give some result and print some graphics.
In the test.tcl scrip I have:
#!object
use_namespace myClass
proc simulate {} {
uplevel #0 {
set running 1
for {} {$running} { } {
moveBugs
draw .world.canvas
.statusbar configure -text "t:[tstep]"
}
}
}
set toroidal 1
set nx 100
set ny 100
set mv_dist 4
setup $nx $ny $mv_dist $toroidal
addBugs 100
# size of a grid cell in pixels
set scale 5
myClass.scale 5
The object.cc looks like:
#include //some includes here
MyClass myClass;
make_model(myClass); // --> this is a macro!
The Macro "make_model(myClass)" expands as follows:
namespace myClass_ns { DEFINE_MYLIB_LIBRARY; int TCL_obj_myClass
(mylib::TCL_obj_init(myClass),TCL_obj(mylib::null_TCL_obj,
(std::string)"myClass",myClass),1); };
The Class definition is:
class MyClass:
{
public:
int tstep; //timestep - updated each time moveBugs is called
int scale; //no. pixels used to represent bugs
void setup(TCL_args args) {
int nx=args, ny=args, moveDistance=args;
bool toroidal=args;
Space::setup(nx,ny,moveDistance,toroidal);
}
The whole thing creates a cell-grid with some dots (bugs) moving from one cell to another.
My questions are:
How do the class methods and variables get the script values?
How is possible to have c++ code and compile it without a main function?
What is that macro doing there in the extension and how it works??
Thanks
Whenever a command in Tcl is run, it calls a function that implements that command. That function is written in a language like C or C++, and it is passed in the arguments (either as strings or Tcl_Obj* values). A full extension will also include a function to do the library initialisation; the function (which is external, has C linkage, and which has a name like Foo_Init if your library is foo.dll) does basic setting up tasks like registering the implementation functions as commands, and it's explicit because it takes a reference to the interpreter context that is being initialised.
The implementation functions can do pretty much anything they want, but to return a result they use one of the functions Tcl_SetResult, Tcl_SetObjResult, etc. and they have to return an int containing the relevant exception code. The usual useful ones are TCL_OK (for no exception) and TCL_ERROR (for stuff's gone wrong). This is a C API, so C++ exceptions aren't allowed.
It's possible to use C++ instance methods as command implementations, provided there's a binding function in between. In particular, the function has to get the instance pointer by casting a ClientData value (an alias for void* in reality, remember this is mostly a C API) and then invoking the method on that. It's a small amount of code.
Compiling things is just building a DLL that links against the right library (or libraries, as required). While extensions are usually recommended to link against the stub library, it's not necessary when you're just developing and testing on one machine. But if you're linking against the Tcl DLL, you'd better make sure that the code gets loaded into a tclsh that uses that DLL. Stub libraries get rid of that tight binding, providing pretty strong ABI stability, but are little more work to set up; you need to define the right C macro to turn them on and you need to do an extra API call in your initialisation function.
I assume you already know how to compile and link C++ code. I won't tell you how to do it, but there's bound to be other questions here on Stack Overflow if you need assistance.
Using the code? For an extension, it's basically just:
# Dynamically load the DLL and call the init function
load /path/to/your.dll
# Commands are all present, so use them
NewCommand 3
There are some extra steps later on to turn a DLL into a proper Tcl package, abstracting code that uses the DLL away from the fact that it is exactly that DLL and so on, but they're not something to worry about until you've got things working a lot more.
I have been playing around with pointers and function pointers in c/c++. As you can get the adress of a function, can you change where a function call actually ends?
I tried getting the memory adress of a function, then writing a second functions adress to that location, but it gave me a access violation error.
Regards,
Function pointers are variables, just like ints and doubles. The address of a function is something different. It is the location of the beginning of the function in the .text section of the binary. You can assign the address of a function to a function pointer of the same type however the .text section is read only and therefore you can't modify it. Writing to the address of a function would attempt to overwrite the code at the beginning of the function and is therefore not allowed.
Note:
If you want to change, at runtime, where function calls end up you can create something called a vritual dispatch table, or vtable. This is a structure containing function pointers and is used in languages such as c++ for polymorphism.
e.g.:
struct VTable {
int (*foo)(void);
int (*bar)(int);
} vTbl;
At runtime you can change the values of vTbl.foo and vTbl.bar to point to different functions and any calls made to vTbl.foo() or .bar will be directed to the new functions.
If the function you're trying to call is inlined, then you're pretty much out of luck. However, if it's not inlined, then there may be a way:
On Unix systems there's a common feature of the dynamic linker called LD_PRELOAD which allows you to override functions in shared libraries with your own versions. See the question What is the LD_PRELOAD trick? for some discussion of this. If the function you're trying to hijack is not loaded from a shared library (i.e. if it's part of the executable or if it's coming from a statically linked library), you're probably out of luck.
On Windows, there are other attack vectors. If the function to be hooked is exported by some DLL, you could use Import Address Table Patching to hijack it without tinkering with the code of the function. If it's not exported by the DLL but you can get the address of it (i.e. by taking the address of a function) you could use something like the free (and highly recommended) N-CodeHook project.
In some environments, it is possible to "patch" the beginning instructions of a function to make the call go somewhere else. This is an unusual technique and is not used for normal programming. It is sometimes used if you have an existing compiled program and need to change how it interacts with the operating system.
Microsoft Detours is an example of a library that has the ability to this.
You can change what a function pointer points to, but you can't change a normal function nor can you change what the function contains.
You generally can't find where a function ends. There's no such standard functionality in the language and the compiler can optimize code in such ways that the function's code isn't contiguous and really has not a single point of end and in order to find where the code ends one would need to either use some non-standard tools or disassemble the code and make sense of it, which isn't something you can easily write a program for to do automatically.
I am writing a library where I need to use some constant integers. I have declared constant int as a local variable in my c function e.g. const int test = 45325;
Now I want to hide this constant variable. What it means is, if I share this library as a .so with someone, he should not be able to find out this constant value ?
Is it possible to hide constant integers defined inside a library ? Please help
Here is my sample code
int doSomething()
{
const int abc = 23456;
int def = abc + 123;
}
doSomething is defined as local function in my cpp file. I am referring this constant for some calculations inside the same function.
If I understand right, you're not so much worried about an exported symbol (since it's a plain normal local variable, I'd not worry about that anyway), but about anyone finding out that constant at all (probably because it is an encryption key or a magic constant for a license check, or something the like).
This is something that is, in principle, impossible. Someone who has the binary code (which is necessarily the case in a library) can figure it out if he wants to. You can make it somewhat harder by calculating this value in an obscure way (but be aware of compiler optimizations), but even so this only makes it trivially harder for someone who wants to find out. It will just mean that someone won't see "mov eax, 45325" in the disassembly right away, but it probably won't keep someone busy for more than a few minutes either way.
The constant will always be contained in the library in some form, even if it is as instructions to load it into a register, for the simple reason that the library needs it at runtime to work with it.
If this is meant as some sort of a secret key, there is no good way to protect it inside the library (in fact, the harder you make it, the more people will consider it a sport to find it).
The simplest is probably to just do a wrapper class for them
struct Constants
{
static int test();
...
then you can hide the constant in the .cpp file
You can declare it as
extern const int test;
and then have it actually defined in a compilation unit somewhere (.cpp file).
You could also use a function to obtain the value.
I'm using Visual Studio 2005.
------------------------[ luapassing.cpp ]--------------------
#include "lua.h"
static int myCfunc (Lua_State *L){
double trouble = lua_tonumber(L,1);
lua_pushnumber(L,16.0 -trouble);
return 1;
}
int luaopen_luapassing (Lua_State *L){
static const lua_reg Map [] = {{"dothis",myCfunc},{NULL,NULL}};
luaL_register(L,"cstuff",Map);
return;
}
-------------------------[ csample.lua ]-------------------------
package.cpath = "./CLua2.dll"
require "luapassing"
print("hola")
print(seth.doThis(120))
I see several issues. I'll describe them, and provide a code fragment that should work as I believe you intended this sample to work.
Your first problem is that the C++ compiler mangled the name of the only function exported from your DLL whose name matters to Lua: luaopen_luapassing(). The stock binary distribution for Windows was compiled as a C program, and assumes a C style name for the DLL module entry point.
Also, you have the protocol for the luaopen_x function slightly wrong. The function returns an integer which tells Lua how many items on the top of Lua's stack are return values for use by Lua. The protocol assumed by require would prefer that you leave the new module's table object on the top of the stack and return it to Lua. To do this, the luaopen_x function would ordinarily use luaL_register() as you did, then return 1.
There is also the issue of naming. Modules written in pure Lua have the opportunity to be less aware of their names. But modules written in C have to export a function from the DLL that includes the module name in its name. They also have to provide that module name to luaL_register() so that the right table is created and updated in the global environment. Finally, the client Lua script will see the loaded module in a global table named like the name passed to require, which is also returned from require so that it may be cached in a local in that script.
A couple of other nits with the C code are that the numeric type really should be spelled lua_Number for portability, and that it would be conventional to use luaL_checknumber() rather than lua_tonumber() to enforce the required argument to the function. Personally, I would name the C implementation of a public function with a name related to its name that will be known publicly by Lua, but that is just a matter of taste.
This version of the C side should fix these issues:
#include "lua.h"
static int my_dothis (Lua_State *L){
lua_Number trouble = luaL_checknumber(L,1);
lua_pushnumber(L,16.0 -trouble);
return 1;
}
extern "C" int luaopen_luapassing (Lua_State *L){
static const lua_reg Map [] = {
{"dothis", my_dothis},
{NULL,NULL}
};
luaL_register(L,"luapassing",Map);
return 1;
}
The sample script then needs to refer to the loaded module by its proper name, and to the functions defined by that module by their proper names. Lua is case sensitive, so if the module creates a function named dothis(), then the script must use that same name, and cannot find it named doThis(), for example.
require "luapassing"
print("hola")
print(luapassing.dothis(120))
I should add that I haven't actually compiled and run the above, so there might be a typo or two left as an exercise ;-)
If you're going to be doing a lot of C++ to lua binding, you might want to take a look at luabind.
If you are compiling as C++ and want to match a 'C' interface, you should declare the externally visible functions as extern "C" to avoid name mangling.
Sooooo I'm writing a script interpreter. And basically, I want some classes and functions stored in a DLL, but I want the DLL to look for functions within the programs that are linking to it, like,
program dll
----------------------------------------------------
send code to dll-----> parse code
|
v
code contains a function,
that isn't contained in the DLL
|
list of functions in <------/
program
|
v
corresponding function,
user-defined in the
program--process the
passed argument here
|
\--------------> return value sent back
to the parsing function
I was wondering basically, how do I compile a DLL with gcc? Well, I'm using a windows port of gcc. Once I compile a .dll containing my classes and functions, how do I link to it with my program? How do I use the classes and functions in the DLL? Can the DLL call functions from the program linking to it? If I make a class { ... } object; in the DLL, then when the DLL is loaded by the program, will object be available to the program? Thanks in advance, I really need to know how to work with DLLs in C++ before I can continue with this project.
"Can you add more detail as to why you want the DLL to call functions in the main program?"
I thought the diagram sort of explained it... the program using the DLL passes a piece of code to the DLL, which parses the code, and if function calls are found in said code then corresponding functions within the DLL are called... for example, if I passed "a = sqrt(100)" then the DLL parser function would find the function call to sqrt(), and within the DLL would be a corresponding sqrt() function which would calculate the square root of the argument passed to it, and then it would take the return value from that function and put it into variable a... just like any other program, but if a corresponding handler for the sqrt() function isn't found within the DLL (there would be a list of natively supported functions) then it would call a similar function which would reside within the program using the DLL to see if there are any user-defined functions by that name.
So, say you loaded the DLL into the program giving your program the ability to interpret scripts of this particular language, the program could call the DLLs to process single lines of code or hand it filenames of scripts to process... but if you want to add a command into the script which suits the purpose of your program, you could say set a boolean value in the DLL telling it that you are adding functions to its language and then create a function in your code which would list the functions you are adding (the DLL would call it with the name of the function it wants, if that function is a user-defined one contained within your code, the function would call the corresponding function with the argument passed to it by the DLL, the return the return value of the user-defined function back to the DLL, and if it didn't exist, it would return an error code or NULL or something). I'm starting to see that I'll have to find another way around this to make the function calls go one way only
This link explains how to do it in a basic way.
In a big picture view, when you make a dll, you are making a library which is loaded at runtime. It contains a number of symbols which are exported. These symbols are typically references to methods or functions, plus compiler/linker goo.
When you normally build a static library, there is a minimum of goo and the linker pulls in the code it needs and repackages it for you in your executable.
In a dll, you actually get two end products (three really- just wait): a dll and a stub library. The stub is a static library that looks exactly like your regular static library, except that instead of executing your code, each stub is typically a jump instruction to a common routine. The common routine loads your dll, gets the address of the routine that you want to call, then patches up the original jump instruction to go there so when you call it again, you end up in your dll.
The third end product is usually a header file that tells you all about the data types in your library.
So your steps are: create your headers and code, build a dll, build a stub library from the headers/code/some list of exported functions. End code will link to the stub library which will load up the dll and fix up the jump table.
Compiler/linker goo includes things like making sure the runtime libraries are where they're needed, making sure that static constructors are executed, making sure that static destructors are registered for later execution, etc, etc, etc.
Now as to your main problem: how do I write extensible code in a dll? There are a number of possible ways - a typical way is to define a pure abstract class (aka interface) that defines a behavior and either pass that in to a processing routine or to create a routine for registering interfaces to do work, then the processing routine asks the registrar for an object to handle a piece of work for it.
On the detail of what you plan to solve, perhaps you should look at an extendible parser like lua instead of building your own.
To your more specific focus.
A DLL is (typically?) meant to be complete in and of itself, or explicitly know what other libraries to use to complete itself.
What I mean by that is, you cannot have a method implicitly provided by the calling application to complete the DLLs functionality.
You could however make part of your API the provision of methods from a calling app, thus making the DLL fully contained and the passing of knowledge explicit.
How do I use the classes and functions in the DLL?
Include the headers in your code, when the module (exe or another dll) is linked the dlls are checked for completness.
Can the DLL call functions from the program linking to it?
Yes, but it has to be told about them at run time.
If I make a class { ... } object; in the DLL, then when the DLL is loaded by the program, will object be available to the program?
Yes it will be available, however there are some restrictions you need to be aware about. Such as in the area of memory management it is important to either:
Link all modules sharing memory with the same memory management dll (typically c runtime)
Ensure that the memory is allocated and dealloccated only in the same module.
allocate on the stack
Examples!
Here is a basic idea of passing functions to the dll, however in your case may not be most helpfull as you need to know up front what other functions you want provided.
// parser.h
struct functions {
void *fred (int );
};
parse( string, functions );
// program.cpp
parse( "a = sqrt(); fred(a);", functions );
What you need is a way of registering functions(and their details with the dll.)
The bigger problem here is the details bit. But skipping over that you might do something like wxWidgets does with class registration. When method_fred is contructed by your app it will call the constructor and register with the dll through usage off methodInfo. Parser can lookup methodInfo for methods available.
// parser.h
class method_base { };
class methodInfo {
static void register(factory);
static map<string,factory> m_methods;
}
// program.cpp
class method_fred : public method_base {
static method* factory(string args);
static methodInfo _methoinfo;
}
methodInfo method_fred::_methoinfo("fred",method_fred::factory);
This sounds like a job for data structures.
Create a struct containing your keywords and the function associated with each one.
struct keyword {
const char *keyword;
int (*f)(int arg);
};
struct keyword keywords[max_keywords] = {
"db_connect", &db_connect,
}
Then write a function in your DLL that you pass the address of this array to:
plugin_register(keywords);
Then inside the DLL it can do:
keywords[0].f = &plugin_db_connect;
With this method, the code to handle script keywords remains in the main program while the DLL manipulates the data structures to get its own functions called.
Taking it to C++, make the struct a class instead that contains a std::vector or std::map or whatever of keywords and some functions to manipulate them.
Winrawr, before you go on, read this first:
Any improvements on the GCC/Windows DLLs/C++ STL front?
Basically, you may run into problems when passing STL strings around your DLLs, and you may also have trouble with exceptions flying across DLL boundaries, although it's not something I have experienced (yet).
You could always load the dll at runtime with load library